• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why does world building matter?

Mythopoet

Auror
I wasn't literally asking for a citation, that was kind of a joke.
But mostly, I'm trying to say that Middle-Earth shouldn't be the standard by which all fantasy settings are measured regardless of how successful LotR is. Middle-Earth and it's use or level of detail might have worked for Tolkien but whatever, not everyone is trying to write Lord of the Rings or something like it.

Multiple polls found LOTR to be the most popular book written in its century. Given the enduring nature of its popularity, I think it's a safe claim.

And I'm not saying any of that. I am always vocal in my belief that writers should write whatever they most enjoy. But this thread seems to be calling into question the entire concept of and purpose of worldbuilding. I think it's fair to point out that the most popular fantasy book ever has a strong emphasis on worldbuilding. That doesn't mean that all fantasy books should, but it supports the argument that worldbuilding is important to fantasy.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I thought we've already come to the conclusion that worldbuilding has a practical use. Tolkien's an example of how worldbuilding proved to be useful but you could point to a number of fantasy works to support that statement.

But I dont think FatCat questioned whether or not there was a use to worldbuilding. They asked how and when is worldbuilding useful or valuable.
 

SeverinR

Vala
World building is needed. To what point is what a writer must decide. Create only what you need or create more then you will ever use. World building is a must for any world other then ours, and even historical fiction needs some world reconstruction if not world building. Because the world of olde is not known to the world today enough to truly experience it.

If you don't world build you can easily over create for the story at hand. Writing the world for a story rather then writing the story in a world. If the world revolves around your story, then things happen just to make the story work. If the story revolves around your world then things happen in the world as things happen to us in the real world.
To me, it prevents cheating. You create something to make it easier or more difficult for the characters, instead of feeling like its actually a part of the world.

Its like a dream or time travel. Either one makes the story meaningless, since you simply wake up and the story never happened or go back in time and change the story. (Disclaimer; Time travel, if done right is interesting, but to save the day at the end with no mention is a cheat.)
 
C

Chessie

Guest
Multiple polls found LOTR to be the most popular book written in its century. Given the enduring nature of its popularity, I think it's a safe claim.

And I'm not saying any of that. I am always vocal in my belief that writers should write whatever they most enjoy. But this thread seems to be calling into question the entire concept of and purpose of worldbuilding. I think it's fair to point out that the most popular fantasy book ever has a strong emphasis on worldbuilding. That doesn't mean that all fantasy books should, but it supports the argument that worldbuilding is important to fantasy.
Absolutely. Worldbuilding...the word itself makes me feel like there's a weight on my shoulders and something I MUST do. I groaned at it. But when I started viewing it as setting, which is just as important as characters, plot, problem, it became easier and much more fun. I ended up creating a world that is dear to me, and I'm so glad it ended up like this.

Think of it this way: fantasy is another world. Sure, in other genres the world is important, too. But not like it is with fantasy. To be an efficient writer in this genre, creating another world is important because the whole idea of the genre is that it takes place outside of real world expectations. That's rather cool.
 
A good quote by Ace Antonio Hall sums it all up for me.

"When you get some free time, write. When you get some lazy time, plan. When you get down time, world build. When your time comes, shine!"

Worldbuilding makes a story breathable by the reader. A good world, with the time spent in making it will show a glimmer, a spark, a firefly light of your soul and make all that you create more real and inspiring to those who will never meet you. Your characters will thank you, you will thank yourself for your preparation, and your readers will thank you for showing them a glimpse of the real you.

That's all me.

-Cold
 

FatCat

Maester
And yet every time you talk about worldbuilding in this thread you've described it in terms that make it sound like you find all worldbuilding excessive.

You picked a glib expressive to my idea of excessive world-building to quote, so I can see how you came to that conclusion. Though I believe I get your point beyond that, and I have my own ideas and opinions on what world building should be. This post came about from some time on this forum, and many writers inquiring about whether certain ideas in their world could/should/how-can-they exist. I hesitate to use an example, because it seems like a theme that the example itself is criticized disregarding the context, but here we go.

I have a problem. In my world, I want three suns. How can I make this work? Any astronomers online that can help me?

Now, enter the people knowing something of this field. The astrophysics of such a thing, how it'd effect the life on that planet, such on. But the question why is surpassed by the notion of originality, because, three suns is different that our own one star. But why that concept exists beyond orginality is lost, why having three suns effects the characters and how having those two extra suns is imperative to the narrative.

I must stress, again, that I understand how setting effects a story. I don't disregard the whole of world-building. I do, however, wonder at what limits should be put on making a world. When it matters, and when it doesn't.

That is the summation of what I'm trying to say. There's been a lot of great responses of how people write and why they feel that way, and that is the sole reason I made the thread. To understand a different opinion than mine.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
I have a problem. In my world, I want three suns. How can I make this work? Any astronomers online that can help me?

Now, enter the people knowing something of this field. The astrophysics of such a thing, how it'd effect the life on that planet, such on. But the question why is surpassed by the notion of originality, because, three suns is different that our own one star. But why that concept exists beyond orginality is lost, why having three suns effects the characters and how having those two extra suns is imperative to the narrative.
Whatever the narrative significance of three suns in a world, I've come to the conclusion that designing a perfectly "realistic" fantasy world is impossible as long as human knowledge of how the real world works remains incomplete. We do not know everything and probably never will. Even the reality we can perceive is subject to varied interpretations due to different worldviews. Given that, inaccuracies and implausibilities to one degree or another are inevitable. Even stories which seem realistic or accurate at one point in time are going to lose that aspect of credibility once science marches on and new knowledge is acquired.

So yeah, we as world-builders probably do stress out way too much on making our worlds realistic.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I have a problem. In my world, I want three suns. How can I make this work? Any astronomers online that can help me?

I don't know if this is real or a hypothetical for the argument, but if you need astrophysicists to figure it out, then it's more of a hard science, sci fi type question. Maybe that's a part of worldbuilding, but it's not usually what people refer to when they talk about worldbuilding in fantasy. For instance, I'm very much a world builder, but I would immediately try to find a magical explanation, and try to follow through on the consequences of that explanation, instead of worry about the hard science of that one (in part because the hard science for that one would probably lead to a very broken setting).

Worldbuilding is about immersion and making the setting as much a part of your characters as anything else. Worldbuilding isn't "Here's a phone book of the Shire," but "Here, let the readers feel that the Shire is a real community just as Bilbo and Frodo feel, and here, let the readers get a first-hand sense of how it shaped their behaviors and actions." When Frodo and Sam are sitting on Mt Doom, thinking about the Shire, wanting to go back, worldbuilding helps the reader to feel that, too.

I wrote a short story about a dwarf, and included a paragraph early on about the dwarf's father. It was a "boring" paragraph, by itself, easy to cut. But one of the big "payoff" lines later in the story referred to the dwarf's father. It wasn't enough for the readers to imagine the sentiment. I needed them to feel that they knew who the father was to get the full impact. I needed that 'boring" setup paragraph to make the payoff line work.

Worldbuilding often works like that. It's about branding a setting, making a memory, making an impression, and using that impression to make an impact on the reader throughout the story.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I have a problem. In my world, I want three suns. How can I make this work? Any astronomers online that can help me?

You ever see the movie 2010: the unnecessary, universally panned sequel to Space Odyssey? I'm going to assume you haven't.
In that movie, through a process called stellar nucleosynthesis, Jupiter heats-up and becomes a second sun.
I think Earth having to suns was suppose to be some kind of Cold War symbolism: "two global superpowers with two suns moving forward to a brighter future" or whatever.
Fortunately, the Jupiter-sun is small enough and far away enough that it doesn't really effect the Earth beyond being visible in the sky. In fact, the new sun only effect Jupiter's moons.

Actual triple star systems operate in a similar way (though I don't think those systems could realistic support an Earth-like planet), so having MUCH smaller stars orbit a sun like planets do could work in a way that appears realistic.

Key word being "appears". I don't think fantasy settings need to make logical/scientific sense as long as they "feel right". At the very least, the reader won't question the setting as long as it feels right.
 
Last edited:

SeverinR

Vala
Thinking about what I said earlier.
All writers must world build. Even modern setting writers build alittle. Their readers don't know the setting. If based in a real city, they won't know the lay out, the weather, the population of the area, and the style of buildings. Such as Tucson Arizona would be a hispanic flair, definately a southwest style. A two story home with shingles is extremely rare.
But the reader would not know anything about Tucson unless they have been there.

You have to research the area of your setting, which is basically worldbuilding in the known world. That is what world building is in a fantasy. Telling the reader what the town looks like, what it feels like, what it smells like. How the town fits into the region, the region fits into the country, the country fits into the continent, the continent fits into the globe, and if it matters, how the glode fits into the galaxy. You can world build down from the town, how a family fits into the town, how a single person fits into the family. How the rat fits into the home, how the flea affects the rat, and the individual, and the family, and the town.
(Remember many plagues and deadly outbreaks were caused by fleas or poor sanitation.)
 
World building matters because the world is the stage on which your story is going to unfold. And the fun(to me at least) of figuring out the nuts and bolts of world.
 

Gryphos

Auror
I think that the question posed can be answered so easily like this. Why does world building matter? Because it's fun! I don't know about you, but I love writing Shire phone books. I love thinking about the world, the history, the tiny insignificant details. Most of what I come up with probably won't ever be mentioned in any of the novels I write, but I come up with it anyway, for my own sake if no one else's.
 

Incanus

Auror
I guess I must be a little confused about the sentiments FatCat is expressing. He seems to be simultaneously acknowledging the importance of setting while dismissing working on the setting. The more work that gets done on a setting, the worse the story gets? Logically, the exact same argument might be made for character--how much character backstory and detail is too much? To me the question is rather absurd. An old adage applies: It is better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

The term 'limit', or 'limited', suggests quantity. Maybe 50 original place names for a setting is acceptable (say), but 51 would be too many? How is one to determine the cut-off point? Who is the final arbiter?

The work on setting is determined by the nature of the story: Middle-earth required a lot, Hogwarts not so much.

Speaking only for myself, I will never love a novel written by an author that didn't want to be bothered by the requisite hard work. It shows.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I think that the question posed can be answered so easily like this. Why does world building matter?

I don't think that's what FatCat is asking, though. He or she is inquiring as to a more utilitarian justification for worldbuilding. Which is where the misinterpreting comes in: this is a forum full of artists (of some kind), we have a very romanticized view on notions like "worldbuilding". For us, "it's fun" might be a good enough reason but FatCat seems to be looking for a more logical and practical reason.

I guess I must be a little confused about the sentiments FatCat is expressing. He seems to be simultaneously acknowledging the importance of setting while dismissing working on the setting. The more work that gets done on a setting, the worse the story gets?

I don't think he's expressing a viewpoint for or against worldbuilding. I think he's trying to provide some kind of counter argument against excessive worldbuilding, which I think is reasonable. "Adding a lot to the setting can add to the story however, isn't it possible to focus too much on the setting to the point where it's detrimental to the writing process" is what I think he's trying to say.
He's looking to build a "Vulcan" argument in favor of worldbuilding. Perhaps even constructing a guide to worldbuilding. At least, that's how I'm reading him.
 

Ryan_Crown

Troubadour
I don't think he's expressing a viewpoint for or against worldbuilding. I think he's trying to provide some kind of counter argument against excessive worldbuilding, which I think is reasonable. "Adding a lot to the setting can add to the story however, isn't it possible to focus too much on the setting to the point where it's detrimental to the writing process" is what I think he's trying to say.

I think there's a very valid point to be made there. On another thread I'm following, about "your writing sins", a few people (myself included) have listed excessive world-building as a possible "sin" that we have, because there reaches that point where you have to ask yourself, "Am I really creating quality world information that will add to my stories, or am I just procrastinating on actually starting my rough draft by continuing to find more world-building tasks?"

Don't get me wrong, I both love world-building and think it's important, but if you've spent a year working on your Shire phonebook, and your Shire map, and your Shire tourist guide, and you have detailed graphs breaking down religious and political affiliations and age/gender demographics, and on an on, but you haven't figured out a story to put into this setting (or have a story in mind that you haven't gotten around to starting on), then essentially you spent a year "having fun" and that's about it. So the question I would ask is this, "At what point would you say you should transition from world-building to story writing?"
 

Incanus

Auror
I'm still not getting it. What am I missing?

There seem to be two main questions: 'Why does world-building matter?' and 'When is world-building excessive?'

The questions are vague, and vague answers appear to be useless truisms--world-building matters because it is setting, and setting matters. As far as I can tell, no one here disputes this, so there would be no point in starting a thread for this reason. The other answer--world-building is excessive when there is too much of it. This sounds circular and useless, no point in starting a thread for this. How much is too much? A matter of taste and personal choice.

On the other hand, a specific answer would be 'one-size-fits-all'--you invent 200 original names, 60 place names, 3 kinds of plants, a magic system with 2 original ideas, 8 new creatures, 2 unique items, etc., etc. This type of answer can't possibly satisfy anyone.

Why can't this be viewed in a similar way as research? People research a subject, but don't generally include every single last thing they found into their writing. You can only know precisely what was needed when you're done writing.

What type of answer is being sought here?

Also, can anyone provide an example--a novel or series boasting too much world-building?
 

Jabrosky

Banned
Since people are worried about whether world-building can be a distraction, might there be certain compartments of world-building which are more likely to distract or have less relevance to whatever story one is developing?

Thinking back to my own world-building career, I have to say there are certain aspects of a world which I take great pleasure in developing, but they're not always the ones that would have the greatest impact on a story.

For example, I have a soft spot for defining and classifying the races of my world. By this I usually don't mean elves, dwarves, or orcs, but rather races within humanity. I'll describe the physical characteristics ubiquitous to people in a certain geographic region, and then sort the world's nations into these races (or rather which races demographically predominate in a given nation). One time I even created a phylogenetic tree showing the racial affinities between different human nations in my world, which was meant to resemble graphs such as one might find in physical anthropology or population genetics papers.

Is that all relevant to most stories I might write in a world? Probably not. At most it will factor into the characters' physical descriptions. But damn, do I enjoy it!

(As someone with a B.A. in Biological Anthropology, I know race is considered an arbitrary social construct these days. But then every classification scheme is socially constructed and arbitrary to one degree or another.)
 

AngelBlue

Acolyte
What an interesting thread!

I'm currently writing urban fantasy, set in our own world, so it is a bit different, however, since I have myriad supernatural creatures inhabiting our world in my story, I very quickly found that I needed to build rules, if only for my own knowledge, for how these characters work, how they interact (or not) with each other, with humans, and the world around them. I strongly felt that if I simply wrote without setting boundaries, I would not only end up with shallower characters and storylines, but I would betray my readers, who, by reading, trust me to guide them through a world they believe I know. So I'd better know it, whatever that takes (currently it has taken a helluva lot of walking around Dublin and virtually walking around Ancient Mesopotamia. A lot. Wanna know about Ancient Mesopotamia? Ask me :p)

So I think worldbuilding matters, and quite a bit--but how much of that world building you actually write into your book is up to you. Most of my rules and history I know, because I needed to know. Its not all going in the books, by any means.

Just my 2 cents.

:angel:
 
Top